The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for termination orders to comply with the relevant regulations and the principles of natural justice, including the need for a speaking order and the recording of reasons for decisions affecting individuals prejudicially.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order(s) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Panta Bench, Patna (for short ‘CAT’) dated 01.08.2019 passed in O.A. No. 050/00326/2019 and O.A. No. 050/00555/2018, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case(s) are that the petitioners were appointed as Multi Task Staff (MTS) vide Appointment Letters/Memos dated 09.07.2012 and 13.06.2012, respectively. Their services were confirmed on 28.01.2016 and further they have earned promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 28.10.2016. In this backdrop, it is learnt that Respondents noticed that petitioners’ selection and appointment to the post of MTS was under cloud to the extent that they were involved in impersonation. In this regard, it is learnt that a committee was constituted and the committee had submitted report to the extent that petitioners were involved in impersonation in so far as their appointment to the post of MTS was concerned. Show-cause notice(s) dated 05.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 respectively, were issued to the petitioners-Shailendra Kumar Choudhary and Amarendra Kumar Ram, for which, they submitted their replies. In their replies, they had requested for furnishing documents including copy of the CFSL report. On 06.03.2018 show-cause notice was issued to petitioner-Dhrambir Kumar, for which, he also submitted his reply. In his reply, he had also requested for furnishing documents including copy of the CFSL report, however, the same was rejected on 02.04.2018. In the result, petitioner-Dhrambir Kumar submitted his second reply to the show-cause notice. Taking note of replies of the petitioners, concerned authority proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioners-Shailendra Kumar Choudhary on 28.02.2019, Amarendra Kumar Ram on 20.03.2019 and Dhrambir Kumar on 21.05.2018.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order(s) of termination, petitioners invoked remedy before the CAT under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in filing O.A. No. 050/00326/2019 and O.A. No. 050/00555/2018, which were dismissed on 01.08.2019, hence the present writ petition(s).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that alleged impersonation has been taken note of and proved behind the back of petitioners in an inquiry stated to have been conducted by a Committee. It is further submitted that the petitioners were confirmed employees in the post of MTS on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of LDC on 28.10.2016. Therefore, they were regular holders of the post in the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and they have a lein in the post of LDC. They are governed by Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 (for short ‘Regulations, 1959’). In terms of Regulation 3-Application read with Regulation No.11-Penalties like minor and major penalties and Regulation No.12-Disciplinary Authorities and other Regulations of Regulations, 1959 is applicable to these petitioners having regard to the fact that they were appointed to the post of MTS followed by confirmation and promotion to the post of LDC. Aforementioned Regulations have not been followed before ordering termination. It is also submitted that Regulation 6-Termination of Service of an employee of the Insurance Corporation is not warranted in the present petition, for the reasons, that the petitioners were confirmed employees and they were promoted to the post of LDC. At the best Respondents should have resorted to invoke Regulation No. 11 of Regulations, 1959 while holding departmental inquiry and imposition of any of the penalties either minor or major penalty. However, Disciplinary Authority has not resorted to or adhered to the aforesaid provisions of law. These legal issues have not been appreciated by the CAT while passing impugned order(s) rejecting